Content uploaded by Himadri Roy Chaudhuri
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Himadri Roy Chaudhuri on Mar 22, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2018-048 December 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 466
encompass the scope of claim types that existed
(Fowler et al., 2015). The authors also determined
that certain of their claim categories more likely
might be deemed misleading or deceptive. In gen-
eral, more claims of all types were viewed as evid-
encing misleading or deceptive tendencies than
were perceived as acceptable, at least from the per-
spective of consumers of these products. Cosmetic
claims declaring superiority aributes likely were
considered untrue, whereas claims with a scientic
orientation were deemed as being vague or omit-
ting information that was essential for consumers
to comprehend fully the meaning and connotation
of the claim.
That article also mentioned a specic type of
cosmetics claim (perhaps of a scientic nature) that
may be particularly troublesome to consumers:
cosmeceuticals. Cosmeceutical claims infer that the
cosmetics has aractiveness-enhancement benets
as well as implying (but not fully substantiating)
that the alleged truthfulness of the cosmetics has
INTRODUCTION
The study of advertising claims has a rich and
extensive research tradition. Environmental advert-
ising claims have been examined in a variety of con-
texts. Researchers, for example, have studied the
identication of specic types of green claims that
may be represented in environmentally oriented
advertisements as well as the potential for these
claims to be perceived as misleading or deceptive
(Carlson, Grove, and Kangun, 1993; Cummins,
Reilly, Carlson, Grove, et al., 2014).
More recently, researchers also have begun
investigating claims appearing in cosmetics advert-
ising. Their objective again is to identify the types
of claims that characterize cosmetics advertising
as well as consumers’ tendency to perceive such
claims as misleading or deceptive (Fowler, Reisen-
wi, and Carlson, 2015).
One study suggested that cosmetics claims
indeed were classiable; these authors developed
six categories of cosmetics claims that seemed to
Assessing Scientific Claims
In Print Ads that Promote Cosmetics
How Consumers Perceive
Cosmeceutical Claims
JIE G. FOWLER
Valdosta State University
jgfowler@valdosta.edu
LES CARLSON
University of Nebraska—
Lincoln
lcarlson3@unl.edu
HIMADRI ROY
CHAUDHURI
Institute of Management
Technology, Ghaziabad
hrchaudhuri@imt.edu
Submitted February 7, 2017;
revised April 13, 2018;
accepted April 17, 2018;
published online January 8, 2019
The area of scientific-related claims in advertising is ripe for additional investigative
endeavor. This article aims to access the nature and potential deceptiveness of scientific-
related claims that appear in cosmetics advertising. To examine these claims, the authors
used perceptions of actual cosmetics consumers as well as of licensed physicians. The
findings suggest that the decision making of cosmetics consumers could be enhanced by
the addition to cosmetics advertising of information about certain cosmetics claims.
•
The copy for cosmetics advertising campaigns should be aligned with the target audience’s
awareness of scientific-related terms presented in the print advertisements.
•
Advertisers may need to augment or even avoid certain scientific-related terms, because such
claims more likely will be perceived to be misleading or deceptive by cosmetics consumers.
•
Both typical cosmetics consumers and licensed physicians believe some forms of cosmetics claims
do not aid consumer decision making.
December 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 467
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS THEARF.ORG
a scientic or pharmaceutical basis (Fowler et al., 2015). “Cosme-
ceutical” is a hybrid expression derived from the combination of
cosmetics and pharmaceutical information (Fowler et al., 2015).
According to Merriam-Webster (2017), “cosmeceutical” is dened
as a cosmetics preparation that has pharmaceutical properties.
For instance, benzoyl peroxide and retinol are cosmetics ingredi-
ents that possess both cosmetics and pharmaceutical properties
(Mukherjee, Date, Patravale, Korting, et al., 2006). Additionally, if
a product is labeled with seemingly natural ingredients, such as
botanical components, marine extracts, or vitamins, it still should
be considered as a cosmeceutical (Jackson-Cannady, 2017).
The medical community acknowledges that cosmetics products
have been marketed as cosmetics but reportedly also contain bio-
logically active ingredients. Examples include antiwrinkle skin
creams with ingredients such as alpha lipoic acid and dimethyl-
aminoethanol (MedicineNet, 2017). Marie Jhin, MD, noted that
even though cosmeceuticals may contain active medical ingredi-
ents that could be benecial in some way, consumers of these
products also need to realize that cosmeceuticals have not under-
gone rigorous investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Adminis-
tration (FDA) (Jackson-Cannady, 2017). Consequently, consumers
can assume neither the truthfulness of cosmeceutical claims nor
the benets of these products.
Because cosmeceutical claims appear to contain properties of
both cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, they may represent a gray
area in that such claims are not entirely classiable as cosmet-
ics or as pharmaceuticals (Fowler et al., 2015). The jurisdiction
domain applicable to cosmeceuticals is unclear. That is, if cosme-
ceuticals were viewed strictly as pharmaceuticals, then the FDA
could exert authority over the potentially misleading or deceptive
nature of these claims. The cosmetics industry, however, prefers
that such claims be viewed as “natural” (i.e., not a drug), thereby
avoiding FDA supervision even though the provided claim sub-
stantiation often is based on incomplete or insucient testing
(Fowler et al., 2015).
Certain companies, however, have claimed not only that their
cosmetics products will enhance a person’s appearance but that
their products also will make structural changes to a consumer’s
skin and even prevent or treat some medical conditions (FDA,
2017). “Consumers need to know that these drug claims have
not been proven to the F.D.A. when they are making a decision
to purchase one of these products,” said Linda M. Ka, MD, the
director of the FDA’s Oce of Cosmetics and Colors (FDA, 2017).
Although the FDA issued warning leers to some cosmetics com-
panies about their products in 2016 (e.g., Zo Skin Health Group
and Ageless Aesthetic, LLC; FDA, 2017), the issue is complex. Jane
Leidkka, MD, a dermatologist at the FDA, explained that although
the FDA regulates many skin creams and lotions as drugs, some
cosmetics skin products might be making drug claims that have not
been evaluated by the FDA (FDA, 2017).
How cosmeceuticals and the advertising of these products
should be evaluated is clouded further by the reality that the
United States is one of only two nations that allow direct-to-con-
sumer pharmaceutical advertising. This is perhaps indicative of a
less intrusive regulatory environment in the United States regard-
ing these products. Advertising of pharmaceutical products to
consumers is a sizeable and rapidly growing phenomenon in the
United States (DeLorme, Huh, and Reid, 2006), so consumers may
have to proceed with lile direction and concomitant caution when
consuming these products.
Perhaps most important, cosmeceutical-product consumers
also want more information in the claims; research has shown
that the informational worth of a cosmeceutical advertising claim
is the most important determinant of whether consumers try the
advertised cosmeceutical product (Meng and Pan, 2012). Further
investigation of the nature and scope of cosmeceutical advertising
claims thus seems warranted, especially to determine the degree
to which consumers’ informational needs are being met. Do these
claims appear frequently in advertisements, and, if so, how might
they be described in terms of their dominant and recurrent char-
acteristics? How will consumers of these products likely perceive
these claims?
Previous work by two of the present authors (Fowler et al., 2015)
made mention of the dilemma surrounding cosmeceutical advert-
ising claims. That work, however, did not investigate issues al-
iated with cosmeceutical claims. Such information might provide
additional needed background for consumers as well as the FDA
and other public policy makers to make beer, more informed
decisions about these claims and their aliated products.
Even though cosmeceuticals may
contain active medical ingredients
that could be beneficial in some way,
consumers of these products also need
to realize that cosmeceuticals have not
undergone rigorous investigation by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
468 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH December 2019
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS
The area of cosmeceutical claims appears to be ripe for addi-
tional investigative endeavor. The purpose of this article con-
sequently is to assess the nature of cosmeceutical claims as well
as to explore potential implications that may arise from their
examination. Regarding the laer, the authors also investigated
whether cosmeceutical claims are susceptible to failing as the
type of information sources needed and expected by consumers
to enhance decision making. This article continues by reviewing
relevant research streams.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Scientific-Related Claims and Cosmeceuticals
The traditional model of science communication includes the idea
that popularization is a diusion process in which scientic or
technical information is disseminated to broad, uninformed pub-
lics (Lewenstein, 1995). One form of scientic language is called
“pseudoscientic language.” “Pseudoscientic,” as dened by
the Oxford English Dictionary, is “a collection of beliefs or practices
mistakenly regarded as being based on scientic method” (Oxford
English Dictionary, 2017).
Pseudoscientic terms are used in advertising copy as a per-
suasive means to convince consumers of product eectiveness
(Ringrow, 2014). The increased usage of pseudoscientic language
is due at least partially to the use of such language in cosmeceut-
ical-product advertising (i.e., cosmetics products that are blen-
ded with pharmaceuticals; Ringrow, 2014). Another variation in
advertising of pseudoscientic language is pseudoscientic jargon,
which, although uncommon to ordinary consumers, is also devoid
of genuine scientic meaning (Chaudhuri and Laha, 2005). This
type of advertising language also is found in technical and cos-
metics products and frequently is used in advertising copy blocks
(Meeds, 2004).
Scientic-related language is dened in a broad sense as “com-
munication amongst specialists” (Arroyo, 2013, p. 199). Its spe-
cicity is reected in a number of distinctive features that could
be summarized as
• brevity (a conscious aempt to do away with distortions in the
information conveyed),
• accuracy (the nature of scientic topics tends to avoid both
semantic and conceptual ambiguity), and
• objectivity (impartially supported by evidence; Posteguillo
Gómez, 2000; Barras, 1978; Cabre, 1999; Fuertes Olivera, 2007).
Pérez-Llantada (2012) observed that brevity and accuracy in
scientic discourse involve the use of complex meanings (e.g.,
retinol is used to treat and prevent Vitamin A deciency and
xerophthalmia).
Unlike pseudoscientic terms, scientic language is completely
understandable only to peer-colleagues in a discipline, and the
terminology is not meant for nonspecialists (Arroyo, 2013). There
has been an increase in the frequency of scientic language in the
cosmetics industry, and herein lies the problem alluded to in pre-
vious work (Arroyo, 2013): Some language used in cosmeceutical
advertisements directed at consumers still may feature scientic
terminology.
There is much debate on how scientic language inuences
consumers (Jackson-Cannady, 2017). Incorporation of such lan-
guage in beauty advertising may be problematic because it is not
clear how such constructions aect consumers’ perceptions of
the product or the advertisement (Ringrow, 2014). Dermatologist
Marie Jhin, MD, noted, “The most important thing consumers
need to realize is that cosmeceuticals have not undergone rigorous
investigation by the F.D.A., and so you must not take their claims
as true or benecial” (Jackson-Cannady, 2017).
Cosmeceuticals and the Regulatory Environment
Cosmetics were not regulated at all until the 1930s (Liang and
Hartman, 1999; Newburger, 2009), but after 16 cases of blindness
were associated with Lash Lure aniline eyelash dye, Congress took
action to protect consumers regarding cosmetics use (Riordan,
2004). The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) set the
regulatory infrastructure for cosmetics on the basis of prevailing
knowledge at that time. The FDCA was modied in 1960 by the
Color Additive Amendment and again in 1966 by the Federal Fair
Packaging and Labeling Act.
The criteria for evaluating cosmetics were intended to be very
similar to established benchmarks for gauging evidence-based
medicine:
• controlled clinical studies using large panels with blinded
volunteers,
• use of accepted instrumental technology and proven
clinical-assessment methodologies,
• well-chosen measurement parameters, and
• statistical analysis of the results (Personal Care, 2011).
Still, Congress put more stringent controls on manufacture and pre-
paration of foods and drugs than on cosmetics (Newburger, 2009).
The FDA is charged with enforcing the FDCA in terms of
policing cosmetics that use labeling that is false or misleading
(Liang and Hartman, 1999). As noted, though, cosmeceuticals
represent a gray area between cosmetics and drugs because they
possess properties of both (Liang and Hartman, 1999; Rinaldi,
2008). The legal distinction between drugs and cosmetics is
that drugs cure, treat, mitigate, or prevent disease or aect the
December 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 469
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS THEARF.ORG
structure or function of the body, whereas cosmetics do not have
these purposes.
Cosmeceuticals are not purely drugs or cosmetics. For example,
alpha hydroxy acid (AHA), an exfoliant that can remove the sur-
face layer of skin as a treatment for scars, wrinkles, and acne and to
lighten skin, is a cosmetics additive. Because removing skin could
be regarded as aecting body structure, AHA might be deemed
a drug per the FDA (Ringrow, 2014), but it is featured in cosmet-
ics advertising. AHA thus qualies as a cosmeceutical because it
exhibits properties of both cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.
AHA is certainly not the only instance of an additive with
cosmetics and pharmaceutical aspects that appears in cosmetics
advertisements. Other examples include apple stem-cell techno-
logy, KeraTriplex, Pro-Xylane, and docosahexaenoic acid. Lile
background explanation usually is provided to consumers who
view cosmetics advertisements that feature cosmeceuticals.
As Jane Leidtka, MD, of the FDA stated, “There is no one size ts
all answer.…What if a skin product comes with the suggestion that
it can turn back the biological clock? Consumers might think these
products can be used as eectively. … If a skin cream says it works
beer than facelift [surgical procedure] … well, people would not
be geing facelifts [surgery] anymore.” (FDA, 2017).
As noted, however, lile research has been conducted on how
consumers perceive cosmeceutical claims. To address this gap in
understanding, the authors sought in this research to examine con-
sumers’ perceptions of these claims.
METHOD
The authors used both content-analysis and cognitive-response
approaches to access consumer discernments about cosmeceut-
ical claims (See Figure 1). The authors employed content analysis
to examine the nature of cosmetics advertising claims, because it
can serve to derive inferences from claim text as well as provide
scientic description of claim content (Krippendro, 1980). Con-
tent analysis is useful in the context of both justication (to sup-
port existing theories) and discovery (to formulate new theories;
Kolbe and Burne, 1991). Content analysis also can be used to
identify stimuli content, such as advertising claims in advert-
isements, and to establish classication typologies for grouping
stimuli (Torres, Sierra, and Heiser, 2007). (Please see Appendix A
for additional examples.)
The authors also used cognitive-response analysis (Belch, 1981;
Wright, 1973) to understand how and why consumers respond to
cosmeceutical claims. Cognitive-response analysis is qualitative in
nature (See Figure 1). Use of both methods enabled the authors
to classify and understand types and paerns of cosmeceutical
claims and consumers’ perceptions of such claims. The authors
next describe the study’s content-analysis typologies and how
they developed and implemented these typologies to examine the
nature of the cosmeceutical claims that they identied in a sample
of cosmetics-product advertisements.
Content-Analysis Typology Development And Cognitive-
Response Description
According to the Journal of Health Communication, direct-to-con-
sumer pharmaceutical advertising devotes more space to describ-
ing product benets than to informing consumers of risks aliated
with product use (Shaw, 2011). Supporting this discrepancy in
how consumers are informed by pharmaceutical advertisements
is evidence on the types of disciplinary action taken by the FDA
during 1997–2006 regarding this product category (Donahue, Cer-
vasco, and Rosenthal, 2007). During this period, nearly 84 percent
of the FDA’s regulatory leers for direct-to-consumer pharmaceut-
ical advertising cited advertisements and companies for
Content Analysis
•Useful to
identify
patterns
•Large sample
of ads
•Exploratory
in nature
Cognitive Response
•Large sample
of respondents
•Identify
feelings/
perceptions
•Qualitative in
nature
Implications
•Comparison
of the results
of the content
analysis and
cognitive
response
analysis
•Drawing
implications
Figure 1 Content Analysis and Cognitive Response
470 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH December 2019
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS
• minimizing risks (e.g., omiing information about side eects),
• exaggerating a drug’s eectiveness, or
• making unsubstantiated claims of superiority over other drugs.
The current authors therefore adapted an initial typology for
the content analysis (See Table 1) from previous work (Carlson
et al., 1993). The original authors designed the typology to identify
the potentially misleading and deceptive aspects of cosmeceutical
claims the authors identied. Those researchers developed this
typology from multiple sources (Aaker and Myers, 1987; Gardner
and Leonard, 1990) that indicated types of misleading or deceptive
properties that might be exhibited in environmental advertising
claims (the focus of the study by Carlson et al., 1993).
This same typology also was used in another study in a sustain-
ability-claim context (Cummins et al., 2014). Both studies (Carlson
et al., 1993; Cummins et al., 2014) identied advertisement claims,
which then were coded as lies, as omissions, or as being vague.
Judges in both studies also were allowed to code claims as “accept-
able” to avoid the implication that every claim had to be assigned
to a “misleading/deceptive” category.
The current authors used the same categories in this invest-
igation (See Table 1). The “misleading/deceptive” classication
typology allowed this study’s judges to assign reasons why they
believed a particular cosmeceutical claim did not provide the
information needed for consumers to make an informed decision
about such products.
The second typology used in the content analysis centered on
scientic-claim classications and was derived through exam-
ination of a sample of cosmetics advertisements (dierent than
the advertisements used in this study). The goal of this typo-
logy development was to identify a set of mutually exclusive
and collectively exhaustive categories that reected the nature
or type of the claims the authors identied (a procedure sim-
ilar to the one used by Carlson et al., 1993). The authors then
used these categories to classify a dierent sample of claims to
ascertain whether the categories in the second typology could
encompass and describe adequately the scope of the claims
identied.
As a result of this process, another category, “performance,” was
added to the claim-type schema typology. This procedure resulted
in explicating the range of claim types that existed in the cosmetics
advertisement sample. Finally, an additional category, “combina-
tion,” was added for claims that might represent characteristics of
more than one of the typology category designations.
Claims that were coded as combinations (i.e., representing mul-
tiple categories) ultimately were considered to be indicative of
coders’ inability to designate a claim as best representing a single
typology category, however, and these claims were deleted in
the nal analysis. Deleting claims assigned to the combination
category also has been done in prior content-analysis studies (e.g.,
Table 1 Misleading/Deceptive Typology
Misleading Types Description
Vague/ambiguous The claim is overly vague or ambiguous. It contains
a phrase or statement that is too broad to have a
clear meaning.
Omission The claim omits important information necessary to
evaluate its truthfulness or reasonableness.
False/outright lie The claim is inaccurate or a fabrication.
Acceptable The claim is classified as being acceptable.
Table 2 Cosmeceutical Claim Typology
Claims Type Description Examples
Image-based claim The claim associates a general statement that results in a broad-
based scientific/cosmeceutical image.
“Dermatologist tested”
Process/technology-based claim The claim deals with technology or the production process. “Apple stem cell technology”
“IntuiGen technology”
Formula-based claim: natural The claim is natural-ingredient based. “100% pure marine collagen”
“Vitamin A and E”
“Argan oil”
Formula-based claim: artificial The claim is artificial-ingredient based. “Adipofill’in complex”
“Mexoryz”
Performance-based claim The claim involves scientific results based on research. “Based on our research conducted by
dermatologists, 80 percent of women felt winkles
were reduced within four weeks.”
Combination The claim appears to have multiple facets (as shown above).
Note: Assignment to the “combination” category was indicative of coders’ inability to designate a claim as best representing a single category.
December 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 471
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS THEARF.ORG
Carlson et al., 1993; Cummins et al., 2014). (The complete list of
categories is presented in Table 2.)
Advertisement and Claim Sample
On the basis of a research report from Advertising Age (2014), the
authors chose ve fashion-magazine titles from 2015 that con-
tained the most advertisement pages: InStyle, Elle, Harper’s Bazaar,
Vogue, and W. For each magazine title, the authors selected four
issues: March, June–July, September–October, and December,
to represent each of the four seasons (some magazines combine
two issues into one for June and July; Ford, Voli, Honeycu, and
Casey, 1998).
This was a convenience sample; the authors did not intend to
generalize from these results to all magazines (Ford et al., 1998),
but they believed that the sampling frame was adequate for their
research purposes. Their intention was to minimize seasonality
problems (Ford et al., 1998) that could have resulted from sampling
magazines representing only a single season. To enhance readabil-
ity, the authors used only one-page advertisements and eliminated
duplicate advertisements (Alden, Mukherjee, and Hoyer, 2000).
This process resulted in 140 advertisements, which were used in
the content analysis.
The authors then identied (with assistance from health-care
professionals) the claims depicted in each advertisement (i.e.,
claims that were highlighted physically in each advertisement).
The authors consulted with a plastic surgeon and her sta in the
southeast region of the United States for assistance in pinpointing
the claims appearing in each of the 140 advertisements. When there
were questions regarding the ingredients or process/technology
expressed in an advertisement claim, the authors asked the health-
care professionals to explain the medical use and meaning of the
terms appearing in the advertisement. The highlighting procedure
ensured that the judges focused on the claim as the unit of analysis
rather than the entire advertisement (Carlson et al., 1993). As a res-
ult of this process, a total of 191 claims (See Table 3) were identied
for the study.
Content Analysis and Coding Procedure
Three female judges then classied the claims—because cosmetics
advertisements tend to target women—according to the chosen
typologies (depicted in Tables 1 and 2). The authors selected judges
with diverse backgrounds to ensure that their views reected
those of the general consumer population (female) as opposed to
choosing judges with only backgrounds in cosmetics. One judge
was a small business owner in her late 20s. The second judge
was a graduate student at a comprehensive university, and the
third judge was a consultant in her early 30s. The diverse prior
experience and current occupations of the judges could have res-
ulted in tendencies to evaluate and code the claims dierently,
although the interrater reliability coecients for each typology
indicated that this was not the case (see the Results section).
The coding process followed procedures similar to prior con-
tent analyses that focused on environmental advertising claims
(Carlson et al., 1993; Cummins et al., 2014). Judges were briefed on
cosmetics advertising, provided an opportunity to ask questions
about the coding process, and given verbal and wrien descrip-
tions and training for each typology prior to evaluating the claims.
Judge training included provision of a codebook that categorized
and explicated all categories in both typologies.
If a claim clearly stated ingredients such as botanicals, mar-
ine extracts, or vitamins, for example, the coders were instructed
to categorize it as “natural,” according to the determined typo-
logy (See Table 2). Similarly, if a claim indicated chemical com-
pounds, such as retinol and Retin A, that claim was to be classied
as “articial,” according to the typology. Likewise, if the claim
emphasized a certain technology, how the product was made, or
its manufacturing process, the claim was to be categorized as “pro-
cess/technology-based” (See Table 2). Finally, judges were encour-
aged to detail in writing their coding experience and any concerns
or reasoning that they might have used in the coding process that
inuenced their categorizations.
To ensure further that judges understood the coding process and
categories for both typologies in the content analysis, the authors
also conducted three rounds of pretests using 20–30 claims in each
pretest. In the pretests, judges were given the entire advertise-
ment, with claims highlighted, and asked to classify the claims into
the typology categories (See Tables 1 and 2) on the basis of their
assessments of the claims. The interjudge reliabilities (Perreault
and Leigh, 1989) for each of the typologies in each of the pretests
were all above .90, which indicated that judges were able to dis-
tinguish among the various types of categories in each typology
in the pretests.
Table 3 Categories of Products in Advertisements in the
Content Analysis
Product Category No. Claims %
Facial skin care 91 47.6
Body product 14 7.3
Hair product 53 27.7
Makeup 23 12.0
Nail product 1 0.5
Other 9 4.7
Total 191 100
472 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH December 2019
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS
Cognitive-Response Analysis and Coding Procedure
The authors used the cognitive-response analysis to study how
a sample of actual consumers of cosmetics products respon-
ded to cosmeceutical claims (Belch, 1981; Wright, 1973). They
followed the content analysis with the cognitive-response ana-
lysis to understand further why claims were being assigned to
categories such as “lies,” “omissions,” or “vague” (See Table 1).
Cognitive-response analysis has been used widely by advertising
practitioners and can be utilized for examining consumers’ cog-
nitive processing of advertising messages (Belch and Belch, 2003).
One purpose for examining cognitive responses is to under-
stand consumers’ reactions to media-based communications,
such as why consumers accept or reject advertisement messages
(Sternthal, Dholakia, and Leavi, 1978). Message rejection can
occur when the communication triggers receivers to generate
counterarguments to message contents, which can engender
opposition to a communicator’s advocacy position (Sternthal
et al., 1978). Receiver-generated cognitive responses to an advert-
ising message may reect and be predictive of the persuas-
ive power of claims appearing in an advertisement (Sternthal
et al., 1978).
To generate advertisements and claims for the cognitive-re-
sponse study, the authors chose advertisements from the con-
tent-analysis portion of their research that contained two
examples of each type of claim in the typology (depicted in
Table 2). They chose two advertisements depicting a formula-ar-
ticial claim, two advertisements depicting a formula–natural
claim, and so forth, for a total of 10 advertisements (See Table 2
and Appendix A). To ensure the appropriateness of these advert-
isement selections, the authors also asked the medical profession-
als used in the content analysis for their advice and assurance
about whether the claims in the 10 advertisements accurately
represented the ve categories from the content analysis (See
Table 2).
To minimize whatever influence brand familiarity might
have on consumers’ cognitive responses, the authors only chose
advertisements for well-known cosmetics brand names. The 10
advertisements for the cognitive-response study were selected
from the content-analysis advertisement sample. This process
was based on consumers’ familiarity with the brand names in the
10 advertisements as well as depiction of advertisement claims
representing the categories (See Table 2).
The authors chose Estée Lauder as an advertiser because it
has been an established company since 1946 and had net sales
in 2016 of $11.26 billion (Estée Lauder, 2017), which indicates
its popularity and familiarity among consumers. The brands
represented in the advertisement sample are sold in multiple
outlets accessible by typical middle-class U.S. consumers (e.g.,
Belk, Dillards).
Finally, the authors also tested familiarity of the brands using
a scale adapted from previous work (Simonin and Ruth, 1998).
They asked respondents to indicate how familiar they were with
the brands depicted in the 10 advertisements on a three-item
semantic-dierential scale (“not at all familiar” to “extremely
familiar,” “denitely do not recognize” to “denitely recognize,”
and “denitely have not heard of it before” to “denitely have
heard of it before”). Results revealed an average familiarity score
of 4.5 (out of 5.0) for the brands depicted in the 10 advertisements.
Because of the nature of the target market for these products
and because of the magazine titles from which the advertise-
ments were chosen, participants in the cognitive-response study
were 194 women who
• were ages 21–34 years,
• had at least two years of college, and
• were from the southeast region of the United States.
These respondents were selected on the basis of the current
market for beauty products. By age 25 years, for example, women
may be using antiaging products, such as retinoid, as an aid in
preventing skin thinning and damage (Feiereisen, 2015; Gonzales,
2015). In addition, use of soft-tissue llers among 20–29-year-old
women exceeded 67,000 procedures in 2015 in the United States
(Harel, 2016). The generation of women who are the target-mar-
ket readers of the magazines in the current study therefore
appear to be using antiaging products.
Participants were shown the 10 selected advertisements online
through Qualtrics, with claims highlighted. The order of present-
ation of the advertisements was randomized. Participants were
asked to list any thoughts they had about the advertisements and
to record their thoughts (the survey protocol had a series of blank
boxes for respondents to record their cognitive responses). They
also were asked to label their aect and feelings about each of
their thoughts as negative, positive, or neutral.
Three female judges were recruited and trained to code the
cognitive-response data using the typology described below. The
rst judge was a current business student from a midsize uni-
versity in the southeast, the second was a graduate student at a
large university in the southwest, and the third was a real-estate
professional.
The typology the authors developed for the cognitive-response
portion of the study embraced four major categories of cognitive
responses: source derogations, source bolsters, support argu-
ments, and counterarguments (See Table 4; Belch, 1981; Wright,
1973). The authors conducted two pretests with 20 cognitive
December 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 473
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS THEARF.ORG
responses generated by the respondents to gauge the ecacy of
these four categories. Each judge was asked to code these cognit-
ive-response messages per the dominant response category. If the
coders were unable to classify a response according to one of the
four categories, the authors asked them to explain their reasons
for their decision and suggested additional categories that might
resolve their coding problems.
This process resulted in the addition of two more categories to
the four cognitive-response classications.
These were
• “message neutral,” which indicated that a response was related
to the message but was neither in support of nor against the
claim being made, and
• “source neutral,” which reected responses that were related
to the source of the claim but were neither in support of nor
against the credibility of the source of the claims.
The judges coded all of the cognitive responses into the six
major cognitive-response categories (See Table 4). The authors
also allowed coders to place responses into an “other” category,
which included cognitions unrelated to the advertisement and
claims as well as thoughts about advertisement execution. These
judges also coded the cognitive responses according to the claim-
types typologies (depicted in Table 2).
RESULTS
Content-Analysis Results
The authors calculated an interjudge reliability coecient (Perr-
eault and Leigh, 1989) for the judges’ evaluation of advertisement
claims for each typology used in the content analysis, because this
statistic is sensitive to reliability dierences and is considered to
be superior to other methods. Reliability coecient scores of .85
and .91 were obtained for the misleading/deceptive and scientic
claim-type typologies, respectively, and were considered accept-
able for content analysis (Perreault and Leigh, 1989). As noted,
claims that had been assigned to multiple categories were dis-
carded from further analysis.
This article presents the key ndings and demonstrates a sum-
mary of dierences found across the categories of each typology in
the content analysis, χ2(15, N = 187) = 42.04, p = .001 (See Table 5).
In terms of the misleading/deceptiveness typology categories, the
analysis revealed that claims more often were classied as being
vague or as an omission. For instance, formula–natural claims ten-
ded to be classied as omissions. In addition, performance claims
were classied as omissions and as false.
Cosmeceutical claim types were identied most often as “natural
formula-based” and least often as “process/technology-based.”
Although natural formula-based claims can be vague or an omis-
sion, the ndings also indicated that some natural ingredients can
Table 4 Cognitive-Response Coding Typology
Coding Schema Definition Examples
Source derogation These thoughts derogate (are negative toward) the
credibility of the source of the claims.
Fake advertising (−)
Made up (−)
Selling (−)
Just a marketer’s way to separate a product from a competitor (−)
They put names for everything (−)
Just a marketing tool (−)
Source bolster These thoughts bolster (are positive toward) the
credibility of the source of the claims.
Smart advertising (+)
Adds some credibility (+)
They invented it (+)
Counterargument These thoughts are in support of the message of
the claims.
Stem cells sound scary (−)
Blatantly irresponsible use of percentages to make it appear that this was an
actual scientific test (−)
Might as well say, “Ninety percent of the developer’s closest friends felt
pressured into giving a positive review” (−)
Support argument These thoughts are counter, or against, the
message of the claims.
Providing statistics to support the product (+)
Sounds promising (+)
Sounds fascinating (+)
Sounds honest (+)
Source neutral These thoughts are neither in support nor
against the credibility of the source of the claims.
It’s theirs (=)
Legal owner (=)
Message neutral These thoughts are neither in support nor
against the message of the claims.
Is it just something stated (=)
Simplicity, convincing? Not sure (=)
Don’t really pay attention to it (=)
Note: + positive schema; – negative schema; = neutral schema
474 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH December 2019
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS
be deemed as acceptable. Articial ingredients seemed to be less
satisfactory, however, given that none of these claims was deemed
to be acceptable. Finally, performance-based claims were deemed
to be reective of an omission, which might have been due to a
lack of sucient information on how the research implied in the
claims was conducted.
To provide additional evidence on the accuracy and credibil-
ity of the claim assignments that were made according to the cat-
egories (as described in Tables 1 and 2), the authors conducted
another examination, this time using actual medical professionals
as judges. The authors’ primary emphasis was on gaining insights
into how actual consumers of cosmetics view cosmeceutical claims.
They conducted the supplementary analysis, however, because
some might argue that such respondents might not be capable of
assigning these claims to the categories because of an assumed
inability to understand the categories fully.
Prior literature provides a precedent for this approach. That is,
judges with more expertise also are used to assign claims to cat-
egories, and their results are then compared with those of actual
consumers of the products or claims being examined. One group
of researchers (Kangun, Carlson, and Grove, 1991), for example,
used two sets of judges (“expert” and “nonexpert”; see p. 50)
to assess the potential misleading/deceptive nature of environ-
mental advertising claims. The nonexpert judges represented
usual consumers of environmentally friendly products, whereas
the expert judges were “doctoral candidates in Environmental
Systems Engineering” (p. 50). As indicated above, the research-
ers included the “expert” judges to provide another perspective
on the credibility of trends identied in category assignments by
“nonexpert” judges.
When results from the two sets of judges were compared, both
groups of judges exhibited acceptable levels of interrater reliab-
ility (Kangun et al., 1991). In addition, 49 percent of the claims in
the study were classied by nonexpert judges as exhibiting a form
of misleading/deceptiveness, versus 37 percent as designated by
the expert judges. In terms of specic categories of misleading/
deceptiveness, expert and nonexpert judges classied more claims
as vague and as omissions rather than as lies (Kangun et al., 1991).
Because of this prior precedent-setting work, the authors
decided to make use of expert and nonexpert judges in this study
and to compare the results of the two groups. As implied above,
the purpose of this additional analysis was to address directly the
perspective that nonexpert consumers of cosmeceutical products
might not make as accurate assignments of claims to the categories
as would expert judges because of a lack of sucient background
and expertise to enable such categorizations.
The authors thus recruited four individuals with a medical back-
ground—two plastic surgeons, a pediatric resident, and a radiolo-
gist—to serve as expert judges. All were licensed physicians at the
time of this research. Realizing that these individuals’ discretion-
ary time was extremely limited, the authors asked them to classify
the 10 cosmeceutical claims used in the cognitive-response analysis
according to both the misleading/deceptiveness categories (See
Table 1) and the claim-type classications (See Table 2).
The authors learned from this additional analysis that claim-
type classications (See Table 2) made by the medical doctors (i.e.,
the “expert” judges) were almost perfectly reliable; three judges
agreed on the type of claim in every instance with no exceptions,
and the fourth doctor only disagreed in two instances with the
other three judges. In terms of the misleading/deceptiveness clas-
sications made by these expert judges (and somewhat similar to
the results in Table 5, which were based on classications made by
“nonexpert” cosmetics consumers), expert judges tended to clas-
sify claims as vague or as an omission (50 percent) or as acceptable
(50 percent) rather than as representing a falsehood or outright lie.
Cognitive-Response Results
Across the three judges in this analysis, typology reliabilities were
.89 for the cognitive-response typology and .93 for the claim-type
typology (Perreault and Leigh, 1989). Any nonclaim-related cog-
nitions were eliminated from the analysis. For instance, responses
such as, “I like the color,” or, “I like the layout,” were not included
Table 5 Claim Types × Misleading/Deceptive Type Cross-Tabulation
Claim Type Vague Omission False/Outright Lie Acceptable Total
Image-based claim 11 (31.4) 14 (40.0) 7 (20.0) 3 (8.6) 35 (100)
Process/technology-based claim 10 (58.8) 6 (35.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (5.9) 17 (100)
Formula-based claim: natural 15 (25.0) 34 (56.7) 0 (0.0) 11 (18.3) 60 (100)
Formula-based claim: artificial 11 (55.0) 8 (40.0) 1 (5.0) 0 (0.0) 20 (100)
Performance-based claim 3 (11.5) 15 (57.7) 6 (23.1) 2 (7.7) 26 (100)
Total 50 (31.6) 77 (48.7) 14 (8.9) 17 (10.7) 158 (100)
Note: Combinations were eliminated from this analysis. Percentages are listed in parentheses. χ2(24, N =197) = 204.90, p < .001.
December 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 475
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS THEARF.ORG
in the analysis. Using a one-sample chi-square test, the authors
observed that the responses were not distributed equally among
the six categories—source derogations, source bolsters, support
arguments, counterarguments, source neutral, and message neutral
(p < .001).
The authors found that the plurality of cognitions toward image-
based claims were deemed to be “source bolsters” (44 percent; See
Table 6). Similarly, process/technology-based claims were per-
ceived as “source bolsters” (29.7 percent). In general, these two
categories of claims were perceived positively by the judges.
Additionally, natural formula-based claims were deemed as
“source bolsters” (60 percent) and support arguments (20.5 per-
cent). Articial-formula-based claims, conversely, generally were
perceived as negative by the respondents. These claims were clas-
sied as “source derogations” (21.5 percent) and “counterargu-
ments” (34.5 percent). Overall, more than half of the cognitions
associated with articial formulas were deemed to be oriented
negatively. Last, the authors found that the cognitions toward
performance claims primarily were perceived as “source bolsters”
(47.2 percent).
The authors then conducted a second analysis, which was based
on the positive, negative, or neutral nature of the cognitions (as
noted, the respondents were asked to label each of their cognit-
ive-response thoughts as being negative, positive, or neutral
to reect their aect and feelings about each of their thoughts).
Image-based claims tended to be seen as positive (50.9 percent),
and process claims were deemed to be negative (42.8 percent; See
Table 7). Natural-formula-based claims were perceived as posit-
ive (80.4 percent), and articial-formula claims were deemed to be
mostly negative (56.5 percent). The articial formula-based claims
received the most negative responses compared with other claim
categories. Last, performance claims tended to be rated as positive
(52.2 percent).
In general, the cognitive-response ndings provide a deeper
analysis of how cosmetics consumers in general (not just three
judges, as were used in the content-analysis part of the study) dis-
cern various types of claims in cosmetics advertising. The nd-
ing that respondents did not hold overly negative aitudes about
claims might have been due to the “omission” or “vague” (rather
than “lies”) nature of the claims, as per the content analysis.
DISCUSSION
The goal of this research was to delve more deeply into a specic
type of cosmetics advertising claim—cosmeceuticals—that hereto-
fore has not been subjected to the form of research scrutiny that the
authors aempted in these studies. The impetus for this research
arose from uncertainty about how these claims might be viewed by
cosmetics consumers and because the FDA, under whose author-
ity the supervision of cosmetics safety falls, has not assumed a
regulatory role regarding advertising-based cosmeceutical claims
(Liang and Hartman, 1999). The FDA does not even acknowledge
the existence of this product category. The organization specic-
ally notes that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not
“recognize any such category as ‘cosmeceuticals’” and, moreover,
Table 6 Claim Type × Cognitive Response Cross-Tabulation
Claim Type
Source
Derogations
Source
Bolsters
Support
Arguments
Counter-
arguments
Source
Neutral
Message
Neutral Total
Image-based claim 111 (12.7) 383 (44.0) 65 (7.5) 129 (14.8) 104 (11.9) 79 (9.1) 871 (100)
Process/technology-based claim 149 (18.1) 245 (29.7) 41 (5.0) 209 (25.4) 121 (14.7) 59 (7.2) 824 (100)
Formula-based claim: natural 25 (3.1) 486 (60) 166 (20.5) 60 (7.4) 55 (6.8) 18 (2.2) 810 (100)
Formula-based claim: artificial 141 (21.5) 146 (22.3) 25 (3.8) 226 (34.5) 77 (11.8) 40 (6.1) 655 (100)
Performance-based claim 152 (23.8) 301 (47.2) 28 (4.4) 58 (9.1) 94 (14.7) 5 (0.8) 638 (100)
Note. Percentages are listed in parentheses. χ2(20, N = 3798) =777.4, p < .001.
Table 7 Claims Types × Affect Cross-Tabulation
Scientific Claim Types Positive Negative Neutral Total
Image-based claim 442 (50.9) 241 (27.7) 186 (21.4) 869 (100)
Process/technology-based claim 282 (34.2) 353 (42.8) 189 (22.9) 824 (100)
Formula-based claim: natural 652 (80.4) 87 (10.7) 72 (8.9) 811 (100)
Formula-based claim: artificial 167 (25.5) 370 (56.5) 118 (18) 655 (100)
Performance-based claim 334 (52.2) 204 (31.9) 102 (17.5) 640 (100)
Note: Percentages are listed in parentheses. χ2(12, N = 3799) = 597.68, p < .001.
476 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH December 2019
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS
that the “term ‘cosmeceuticals’ has no meaning under the law”
(FDA, 2002).
The authors hoped in this research to provide insight about cos-
meceutical claims, which included determining the frequency of
occurrence of these claims. If cosmeceutical claims only appear
rarely, if ever, in advertisements in media accessible to cosmetics
consumers, then one might argue that this is an area that requires
lile, if any, additional consideration. If such advertisement claims
do emerge frequently in sources used by cosmetics consumers,
however, then the next step might include determining the type
of claims being evidenced in cosmeceutical advertising. It might
also be helpful to assess the degree to which these claims may
be perceived as misleading/deceptive, to ascertain whether con-
sumer information needs are being met. The laer is particularly
important because even though consumers desire information to
aid decision making about cosmeceutical products (Meng and Pan,
2012), that information must be in a form that is useful and not
misleading or deceptive in content.
To address these issues and questions, the authors found a total
of 140 unique (nonduplicated) advertisements that depicted at least
one cosmeceutical claim, all from a single year (2015) in only ve
fashion magazines. The study’s rst conclusion consequently is
that cosmetics-product advertisements with cosmeceutical claims
are in evidence in a media source that is of interest to and used
by target-market consumers of these products (young women;
Meng and Pan, 2012). Advertisements about cosmetics featuring
cosmeceutical-based claims are not a mere chance occurrence or
an infrequent advertising phenomenon.
The authors then developed a typology of cosmeceutical advert-
ising claims (See Table 2) and applied this typology through con-
tent analysis to the cosmeceutical claims in the advertisements
gathered from the ve fashion magazines. The authors conducted
another content analysis on the same set of cosmeceutical claims,
this time using a misleading/deceptiveness typology. They then
merged the results of the two content analyses to pinpoint specic
types of cosmeceutical claims that might be more susceptible to
being deemed misleading/deceptive.
This blending of two content analyses was based on similar pro-
cedures used by other researchers (Carlson et al., 1993) in a study
that aempted to pinpoint specic types of environmental advert-
ising claims that might be more susceptible to being viewed as
misleading/deceptive. This portion of the study was intended to
determine whether cosmetics consumers are receiving the form
of information about cosmeceutical claims that they need (Meng
and Pan, 2012). This is to say, will this information more likely be
perceived as acceptable or as misleading/deceptive by consumers
of these products?
As indicated previously (See Table 5), cosmeceutical claims more
likely will be perceived as misleading/deceptive than as acceptable.
Misleading/deceptive claims are more prone to being deemed as
vague or as an omission than as false or as an outright lie. Ana-
lysis also revealed that formula–natural claims (ones that claim a
natural ingredient is being used in the product, e.g., marine colla-
gen) and performance claims (ones that cite research-based pro-
duct-performance outcomes) more likely will be classied as an
omission or as vague. Claims classied as formula–articial were
classied exclusively into one of the misleading/deceptive categor-
ies, with none being deemed as acceptable.
These results based on the classications of actual consumers of
cosmetics products who served as judges were mirrored somewhat
by the input of expert judges, actual medical practitioners who
completely agreed on the assignments they made of the cosme-
ceutical claims to the specic claim-type categories. This similarity
of assignment classications by medical professionals thus lends
credibility to the claim-type categories as representing the scope of
what constitutes the types of cosmeceutical claims that are being
made. Also, similar to what was found for nonexpert judges, when
fault was identied, the expert judges deemed the decit as being
vague or an omission rather than a lie; expert judges found no
claims to be representative of false/outright lies. Finally, the expert
judges were, in general, as likely to perceive the claims as being
misleading/deceptive or as acceptable.
There was a discrepancy between the expert and the nonex-
pert judges regarding the comparative frequencies of misleading/
deceptive claim assignments they made. The authors aribute
this to the reality that cosmeceutical claims require a credence
level of interpretation—product-performance information whose
“value” never can be ascertained truly and accurately with con-
viction (Collier, 2012) by typical consumers of the products being
advertised. When individuals with sucient background and
expertise to assess the veracity of such claims—such as medical
doctors in this case—were asked to make these classications, it
is not surprising that the number of claims deemed misleading/
deceptive decreased.
Neither set of judges found these claims to be representative of
lies and falsehoods. Rather, claims that were deemed to be de-
cient or not acceptable by either group simply might need some
additional clarifying information or testimony to make them mean-
ingful enough to be useful decision-making aids for consumers.
The consumer’s perspective about cosmeceutical claims and
how that perspective is inuenced by claim presentation at the
credence level of interpretation also is substantiated by the study’s
cognitive-response ndings. The results indicate that certain
of these claims (process/technology-based claims and articial
December 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 477
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS THEARF.ORG
formula-based claims) were receiving negative thought reactions,
source derogations, and counterarguments that had a negative
valence (See Tables 6 and 7). These claims might have used scienti-
c-based language that typical consumers, as opposed to experts,
found dicult to understand and judge as to their veracity and
truthfulness (See Table 2).
In addition to the conclusion that cosmeceutical claims were
being manifested, the authors also deduce that the information
content of some of these claims was not of the type that consumers
of these products want or need, especially those claims termed
formula–articial. The cosmetics industry should be providing
information that might lead to beer and more accurate decision
making about consuming cosmetics that are promoted with cosme-
ceutical claims. Instead, consumers of these products have access
to advertisement-based information that is vague and may be
omiing information necessary to aid consumer decision making,
at least to judges who represented cosmetics consumers.
The United States is one of only two countries (New Zealand is
the other) that allow direct-to-consumer advertising of pharma-
ceuticals (Ventola, 2011). The FDA does not recognize cosmeceut-
icals as a viable category. Some have argued that diculties are
encountered because the number of FDA sta members dedicated
to reviewing drug advertisements is small (Ventola, 2011).
In 2009, only 59 full-time FDA employees reportedly were
responsible for reviewing 71,759 industry submissions of pharma-
ceutical promotional material. FDA personnel consequently were
able to cope with only a fraction of these submissions. Similarly,
in 2008, only 35 percent of broadcast pharmaceutical materials
had been reviewed, because of sta shortages (Ventola, 2011).
Whether additional FDA sta coupled with FDA recognition of
cosmeceuticals as a legitimate product category might translate
into enhanced information value for consumers in cosmeceutical
claims remains to be seen.
In the United Kingdom, although advertising nonprescription
medicines to the public is permied, direct-to-consumer advertising
of prescription-only medicine has been prohibited strictly since 1994,
per the Advertising Act (Pharmaeld, 2017). In Germany, health-
care professional advice is not permied in direct-to-consumer
advertising. In Spain, direct-to-consumer advertising is allowed only
for medicines that treat very minor symptoms.
At present, the authors do not know whether disallowing dir-
ect-to-consumer advertising in virtually all other countries results
in beer or worse cosmeceutical advertising in these same locales.
In countries where direct-to-consumer advertising is banned, are
there fewer but more informative and more accurate cosmeceut-
ical claims as a result of this type of regulation? Further research
certainly could target such issues.
As in all studies, certain limitations may detract from the nd-
ings. For example, as discussed earlier, the authors selected ve
fashion magazines—InStyle, Elle, Harper’s Bazaar, Vogue, and W.—
to generate the sample of cosmetics advertisements from which
cosmeceutical claims were identied. The magazine-selection
decision was based on the fact that these publications had the most
advertisement pages.
Online media kits suggest that audiences for some of these
magazines trend toward readers who are older than the respond-
ents in the cognitive-response study (194 women ages 21–34).
For example, 41.4 percent of InStyle readers are 35–54. For other
magazines utilized, however, there was more complete overlap
between the ages of the cognitive-response study respondents and
those of the magazine’s audience; 44 percent of Elle’s audience are
18–34. The authors acknowledge that the audiences of some of the
magazines they used do not correspond completely with the ages
of cognitive-response respondents. Evidence also indicates that
wrinkle prevention, including the use of retinol, is being sugges-
ted to women in their early 20s by a number of sources, including
health-care professionals (Levi, 2012; Mitchell, 2018; Russo, 2018;
Solomon, 2015).
The authors also recognize that cosmetics consumers might
not have sucient expertise to be capable completely of assign-
ing claims to the categories developed in this article. The authors
aempted to address this issue by incorporating another set
of judges with a medical background (four doctors), who also
assigned some of the claims in the study to these categories. The
results did not completely overlap, but, as noted, the diering
levels of expertise between the two sets of judges likely account
for these dierences, particularly given the credence level of inter-
pretation that is characteristic and required of most cosmeceutical
claims.
The authors agree with previous researchers (Kangun et al.,
1991) that asking nonexpert judges to assess claims that require
a certain level of prociency to understand can create a “demand
characteristic” (p. 53), whereby nonexpert judges become more
The cosmetics industry should be
providing information that might lead
to better and more accurate decision
making about consuming cosmetics that
are promoted with cosmeceutical claims.
478 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH December 2019
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS
judge sets did not coincide perfectly consequently might be an
The authors interpret the almost-perfect reliability displayed by
their expert judges in assigning claims to the claim-type categories
as evidence that the study might have encompassed the scope of
the cosmeceutical claim domain. Results across studies indicate
faults are characterized primarily in only two claim types. These
claims by and large are of the type that only would require some
additional information to aid consumer decision making.
Consumer decision making might be enhanced greatly by some
rather minor copy editing. When a cosmetics advertisement makes
example, the advertisement might follow that phrase with a short
presenting that terminology with no accompanying explanation.
(This was the case in one of the advertisements used in the cognit-
ive-response portion of this research, which was also evaluated by
the expert judges.)
The authors undertook this study to provide background
on a form of advertising claim used in the cosmetics industry
that might be a candidate for additional research scrutiny. They
hope that their results spur additional study on cosmeceutical
claims and perhaps encourage this industry to provide addi-
tional information in these claims to enhance informed consumer
decision making.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Jie G. foWLer is associate professor of marketing in the department of marketing and
international business at Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA, where she mainly
teaches marketing research and promotion/advertising. Her work has been published in
the Journal of Macromarketing, Qualitative Market Research, and Journal of Business
Strategies, among others.
LeS CarLSon is the Nathan J. Gold Distinguished Professor of Marketing at the University
of Nebraska—Lincoln. His work has appeared in publications such as the Journal of
Consumer Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and Journal of
Advertising Research. His research interests are the marketing–public-policy interface.
HiMaDri roy CHauDHuri is a professor of marketing at Institute of Management
Technology, Ghaziabad, India. His research interests lie in conspicuous consumption
and transformative consumer research, subaltern consumption, and consumer
culture theory. His publications can be found in journals such as Qualitative Marketing
Research and Academy of Marketing Science Review, among others. He is currently
editing a book on marketization.
REFERENCES
and . Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1987.
.
and
Surprise and Positive Moderators on Perceived Humor in Television
Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 29, 2 (2000): 1–15.
through Opacity.” 26 (2013): 197–214.
. London: Chapman and Hall, 1978.
Cognitive Response and Message Acceptance.”
18 (1981): 333–349.
and
, 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, 1999.
and
Environmental Advertising Claims: A Matrix Method Approach.” Journal
of Advertising 22, 3 (1993): 27–39.
and
Jargons and Advertising Persuasiveness.” Retrieved January 12, 2016, from
Advertising Context.” 34, 3 (2014): 332–348.
and
Consumers Behave Following Exposure to DTC Advertising.” Health
20, 3 (2006): 255–265.
and
to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs.”
Medicine 357 (2007): 673–681.
December 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 479
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS THEARF.ORG
about Aging.” , March 16, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2017, from
start-now
and
of Portrayals in Japanese Advertising: A Magazine Content Analysis.”
Journal of Advertising 27, 1 (1998): 113–124.
and
Advertising: Examining Cosmetics Advertising Claims in Fashion
Magazine Ads.” 6, 3 (2015): 194–206.
F. Yus Ramos, eds. Barcelona: Ariel, 2007.
and
Corrective Advertising Progress to Date and Impact on Public Policy.”
Current Issues and Research in Advertising 12, 1–2 (1990): 275–309.
Products.” Retrieved April 20, 2017, from the Yahoo Lifestyle website:
certain-123130688301.html
Elle, July 22,
and
Claims: A Preliminary Investigation.”
10, 2 (1991): 47–58.
and
Examination of Applications with Directives for Improving Research
Reliability and Objectivity.” , 18 (1991): 243–250.
Content Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1980.
Pinch, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.
and
of Skin Care Cosmetics Claims.” 8,
2 (1999): 249–280.
Copy: The Roles of Gender, Self-Assessed and Objective Consumer
Knowledge.” International Journal of Advertising 23, 3 (2004): 309–335.
and
Advertising in Beauty-Care Decision Making.” International Journal of
6, 3 (2012): 250–266.
Safety.” Clinical Interventions in Aging 1, 4 (2006): 327–348.
Clinics in
27, 5 (2009): 446–452.
. New York: Bloomsbury, 2012.
and
Qualitative Judgments.” 26, 2 (1989): 135–148.
March 1, 2011, 1–3.
by E. Alcaraz Varo.” Retrieved October 20, 2016, from the Asociación
480 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH December 2019
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS
Claim Drug-Like Properties Reach the Market.” EMBO Reports 9, 11 (2008):
1073–1077.
Advertising.” Études de Stylistique Anglaise 7 (2014): 183–210.
Inventing Beauty. New York: Broadway Books, 2004.
Start Using Anti-Aging Products in Your 20s—Here’s What They
using-anti-aging-products-too-early-2018-2
and
Journal of Marketing Research 35, 1 (1998): 30–42.
Glamour
and
Source Credibility: Tests of Cognitive Response.” Journal of Consumer
Research 4, 4 (1978): 252–260.
and
Label Placement in Print Ads: A Social Contract Perspective.” Journal of
Advertising 36, 2 (2007): 49–62.
Drug Claims Made for Products Marketed as Cosmetics.” Retrieved May
Pharmacy and Therapeutics 36, 10 (2011): 669–684.
Advertising.” Journal of Marketing Research 10, 1 (1973): 53–62.
Appendix Sample advertisements (cosmeceutical claims are circled)
“Patented technology” “The newest modern formulas”
Figure A1 Image-Based Claim
December 2019 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 481
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS THEARF.ORG
“Apple stem cell technology” “The first creme with IntuiGen Technology™”
Figure A2 Process/Technology-Based Claim
“Exclusive AVEENO ACTIVE NATURALS Oat has 5 vital
nutrients, naturally found in healthy skin”
“Hyaluronic acid (HA), naturally found in skin”
Figure A3 Formula-Based Claim: Natural Clean
482 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH December 2019
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS IN PRINT ADS THAT PROMOTE COSMETICS
Figure A4 Formula-Based Claim: Artificial Clean
“Resynchronize your skin’s appearance with
the only serum with ChronoLuxCB™”
“2% BHA liquid Salicylic Acid”
Figure A5 Performance-Based Claim
“Yet in clinical trials our serum was comparable
to a leadingprescription indgredient with a
53% improvement in evening skin tone”
“90% of women are convinced of its effectiveness”
CopyrightofJournalofAdvertisingResearchisthepropertyofAscentialEvents(Europe)
Limitedanditscontentmaynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistserv
withoutthecopyrightholder'sexpresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,
download,oremailarticlesforindividualuse.
